Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:35:37 -0800
Subject: Re: A modest proposal -- the imp. signature
>Also remember, I don't propose that if the imagemaker is the same as the
>printmaker that two full signatures be used on the print. If they are the
>same the imp. is just the initials. Thus my prints would be signed Richard
>Sullivan and rss imp. Just the initials as two full signatures would be a
>little much.
>
>And as Jeff reminds us money enters into the factor. The big sellers are
>often folks who don't make their own prints. I suspect most galleries
>aren't going to be too keen on this idea. As were reminded a few messages
>ago, the buying public doesn't have too much of a clue as to the mechanics
>of the art market and how prints get made. There is money to be made
>maintaining the fiction that all the big shots make their own prints. Money
>ranks supreme.
>
>--Dick Sullivan
In all practicality, stepping out of the theoretical mode of this
discussion, I use a 'title block' stamp on the back of all mywork.
It asks for the information and I fill in the appropriate blankls:
Photography by <and I have a stamp with my copyright and name> Next line:
Title, then Series; and then Title of Portfolio; a forth line for Film, type
speed, exposure, developer; fifth line for paper, same details; then the
camera and exposure info.
I got the 'title block' info/technique from Roger Fremier's "Toward
Photographic Independence" course at our local college.
>At 12:31 AM 2/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>Just what is the purpose of printing a photograph anyway? Is it to make
>>a buck? Is it to show off? Is it to prove something? Is it to be
>>creative?
>>
The whole idea as a master artist is to show a command of what you're doing.
The simpler you can explain it, the more the work stands on it's own.
There were no pages of essays attached to Rembrant's paintings, or
Michaelangelo's sculpture; strangely enough DaVinci wrote a lot and has work
in public relatively less known than Michaelangelo.
We can all subscribe to a Print Guild, and fabricate guidelines as hadbeen
done with painting in the late 20's through 40's in California; and they
still have guidelines in the water color society, other organized and
institutionalized practices have lent themselves to furthering artist's
works by standardization and recognition of the artist without fraud or
infiltration of copies.
Look at the latest Man Ray scandal. What fun, that photography has
commanded such unscrupulous actions because of its importance.
Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:53